PozTalkAuthor

Oh, well, comparing abortion to mass-murder, saying that the civil rights act was a mistake... I honestly find some conservative positions very dangerous for underrepresented folks. But "dangerous" does not mean "shoot them" or "prevent them from talking". I feel there are too many extremes, both in left and right side and I'd suggest to read a book about this. The author is French, she's Caroline Fourest and the book is "offended generation". She talks from a progressive and pro-lgbt point of view, about how progressive-oriented extremism ruins civil rights themselves. Maybe that phenomenon someone calls "woke". I am not a fan about these "all-inclusive" terms meaning everything and nothing, I'd rather prefer to talk about polarized culture. It's like having two deers fighting for the one with biggest horns or, well, the guy with biggest dick. But no one is the winner, in the end! I'm very worried because those folks like Kirk, are against diversity and inclusion policies, just as an example. Or even against EMPATHY! We can say DEI policies aren't perfect? Yes. We must say it, improve them, scream aloud what's wrong. We can say that empathy is a weak point somehow, because of very frequent scams! Too much empathy has caused half America to believe in Alicia (Tania) Head, that woman who faked to be a WTC survivor. Or the cancer fake survivor Amanda (Scamanda) Riley. Or that woman blogger who faked to have a sick kid till the child died to salt overdose, a case of Munchhausen syndrome. We could go on with dozens of people fooling us because of our good feelings. But lecturing against empathy does NOT make ourselves stronger. Declaring extreme concepts about abortion too. We can be pro, or against, abortion rather than anti-racism, lgbt rights, etc. But if we want to be politicians, we should remember we represent the whole country! Of course it applies to the opposite side too: having LGBT marriages, won't harm hetero families. But let's be honest: if you place an LGBT character or couple in _every_ TV series, it becomes boring! I have seen "breathless", a Spanish Netflix medical drama. There were 4 lgbt characters, 2 men and 2 women. Was it representation? Tbh, no. They were extremely stereotyped figures. As a writer, I'm aware stereotypes are essential in art. But these are extreme, and used to make both parts happy: "liberal" see gays represented, "conservatives" see their prejudices confirmed. My half a cent.

I've always been against violence and murder; if you kill a person for their ideas, you just make these ideas stronger. I had never heard who this Kirk was, before his death. Maybe here in EU he wasn't so famous. Btw, the result is that now the world knows him and searches for his discussions. What's more serious then? President asking for murderer's death sentence. To condemn death, you respond with death? Is it a way to do politics? I hoped humanity would have evolved, but I might be wrong. As LGBT community we must be aware of this: Kirk's murder will increase and accelerate Trump's plans to block LGBT advocacy. Robinson was not a LGBT advocate or so; media all over the world, talk about a trans partner, pro-trans slogans, etc, because they are avoiding the elephant in the room. As usual. The fact that younger people are becoming more and more extremists. And let me say, social network algorithms are contributing to polarize the debate. The one who's right, is who screams louder. This wouldn't be a civil world! And as for the "antifascist" issue, I think we should look ourselves at the mirror and ask if we really are anti-fascist. Because fascism is no longer a movement, it's a method! Do you belong to far-right, or radical-left, if you indulge violence towards your opponent, you're an anti-fascist using fascist methods. Then? Kirk? His ideas? I do not share a word with him, it is a dangerous rethoric for society. But murder is not a solution. What makes Kirk's ideas so popular? Maybe the fact he has a BETTER way to communicate, a good charisma, whatever? A good idea, but with a questionable communication method, nowadays becomes ineffective. The system is toxic, like it or not. Let me say, it's like mosquitos. You can spread poison through the entire house, but if you do not take care of the pot outside, with water where mosquitos deposit their eggs, it's like the crocodile chasing its tail. My 1,5 cents.

So, let me say something about Prevost. On 5th and 6th September in Rome about 1300 queer folks were pilgrims of the Jubilee. No words from Leo. It has been under silence; he has canonized two young guys as saints, Carlo Acutis and Pier Giorgio Frassati. I honestly won't talk about them because I respect those guys but don't believe in saints, miracles and that stuff at all. By the way, there's another person who's never remembered by church, the world never talks about him. He's Alfredo Ormando, Italian writer who killed himself burning himself alive, in 1998 in St. Peter's Square, Rome. The reason was church's rejection towards homosexuality. And for those believing in Bergoglio -Francis-'s "inclusive" point of view, yes, he talked about it but he had conditions, he preached about chastity, saying "man and woman only are family", had that paranoia of "gender theory" and stuff. I respect Christian people but don't understand how someone can believe in a religion despite being rejected by it. Divinity itself, in case it exists, shouldn't refuse anyone. But humans claiming themselves divinity's representant do, so, fuck them all. Even because church is full of homosexual acts, we should not make fools of ourselves believing in fairy tales! So, let me add this: first time I knew about chastity cages, I have always fantasized of Vatican leaders (pope at first) forcing themselves and all priests below them, to wear a cage. Do you lecture about chastity? Be the first to force yourself.